X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 	autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l86Hf1ux007415 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:41:02 -0400
Received: from galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.134]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l86HeN4l032705 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:40:31 -0400
Received: FROM ccl.northwestern.edu (ccl.northwestern.edu [129.105.107.89]) 	BY galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E03B90.BF9B7.24805 ;  	 6 Sep 2007 13:40:32 -0400
Received: by ccl.northwestern.edu (Postfix, from userid 10082) 	id AA8C71801C1; Thu,  6 Sep 2007 12:40:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by ccl.northwestern.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80FE3C805F; 	Thu,  6 Sep 2007 12:40:27 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0709061233480.3838 &AElig ccl.northwestern.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>   <582561.78990.qm &AElig web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>   <2ff07e720709051135y423738cci55b2cdcbb5a6aac0 &AElig mail.gmail.com>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051455480.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051524040.27494 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709052029550.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <1189093182.28315.51.camel &AElig hactar>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061155460.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0709061108280.12808 &AElig ccl.northwestern.edu>  <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:40:27 -0500 (CDT)
To: Rob Felty <robfelty &AElig gmail.com>
cc: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, Erik Talvitie <etalviti &AElig eecs.umich.edu>,         improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Bill Rand <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

	Yeah I agree with you about Pat Roberts, I tried to distinguish 
that issue, but mayhe I didn't do it well enough.  Just because someone is 
articulate and well-reasoned does not neccessarily mean that I will vote 
for them, especially if I disagree with their basic premise.  They still 
need to convince me that they are correct, and it sounds like Pat Roberts 
didn't do that for you, so I think you're agreeing with me.

	My basic claim is that a candidate's reasoning and explanation for 
their stance on issues is at least as important as (and in my case I would 
say more important than) their actual stance.  Their reasoning and 
explanation gives you insight into how they arrived at that stance and how 
they will make decisions in the future, whereas their current stance tells 
you little about the future.
Take care,
Bill


On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Rob Felty wrote:

> I disagree with Daniel, Erik, and Bill on this one.
> 
> 1. Danny -- I think we should all support who we want to, and let the
> market decide who wins. :) You do make a good point though that
> publicly supporting people makes a big difference, which is why I sent
> this to my parents, knowing that they have probably heard little about
> Mike Gravel. If you are interested in learning more about Mike Gravel
> or Ron Paul, look at reddit.com (a sort of news aggregating website).
> 
> 2. Bull-headedness and beer drinking.
> 
> I once heard Pat Roberts talk on Fresh Air. I was very impressed by
> how articulate he was and he generally seemed to be very educated and
> intelligent, and made well-reasoned arguments. However, I strongly
> disagree with him on some economic issues, and almost all social
> issues. I would like to hear him in a debate, or talk with him in
> person, but I would never vote for him, because his actions would be
> almost the exact opposite of what I would wish for.
> 
> Rob
> 
> On 9/6/07, Bill Rand <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >         I agree with Erik on this one.  When people kept saying that
> > they voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy he wanted to have a
> > beer with, I thought that was the worst possible criteria you could come
> > up with for electing a president.  I want someone who has intelligent
> > views on issues and can even convince me to change my mind on issues, and
> > works really hard to find out everything they need to know about an issue.
> > I want someone who I would pay to go sit in a lecture and hear them
> > discuss the issues of the day.  They provide unique insight, that really
> > makes me think.  In the end I guess I don't like to vote based on
> > someone's view on issues but rather on their articulation and evidence to
> > support their view on the issues.  Then I can go out and see if what they
> > say makes sense based on my own research.  Of course in cases where I have
> > clear thoughts on these issues, if they disagree with me it will of course
> > take them a lot more convincing, but I still won't vote for someone just
> > because they agree with me on everything.  In fact if I saw a candidate
> > just articulate all the things I support, but do it in a poor manner, I
> > would be less likely to vote for them.  So I don't think bull-headed
> > idealogue fixes this problem, but I do like your pre-commitment idea Danny
> > since it could overcome this objection if it was something we negotiated
> > on the list as a group as opposed to relying on the calculator.  Take
> > care,
> > Bill
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >
> > > Would adding the criterion "not a bull-headed ideologue" fix this?
> > >
> > > And what do you think of my ITW Endorsement Pre-commitment idea?
> > >
> > > --- \/   FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 11:39 (Today)   \/ ---
> > >
> > > >> According to yootles.com/candicalc we are overwhelmingly in favor of
> > > >> Kucinich, as are (to a lesser extent) the other 150,000 people who
> > > >> answered those same questions.  The selectsmart page (linked to at the top
> > > >> of yootles.com/candicalc) says I like Ron Paul the best.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing about these calculators: they seem to assume that your
> > > > ideal candidate is...you. To me, that's kind of an odd place to start
> > > > from. I mean, obviously it is true that I take the political positions I
> > > > take because I believe if the government were to take the same
> > > > positions, we'd be a better nation for it. That said, I fully recognize
> > > > that if I could perform a government transplant and replace our current
> > > > one with one that agreed with me on every issue, we'd have a big problem
> > > > on our hands. Because *most* people don't agree with me on at least some
> > > > issue that is really important to them, and everything would just grid
> > > > to a halt. So really I'd much rather have a government that most people
> > > > can get along with, but one that is walking in my direction and bringing
> > > > the nation with it.
> > > >
> > > > So when both calculators tell me Kucinich is the best candidate for me
> > > > (yootles: 58, selectsmart: 98), I can see where they're coming from. I
> > > > *like* Kucinich. I like what we has to say and I love to hear him speak.
> > > > I think he's the most legitimately liberal candidate in the field. And
> > > > that's why I would never vote for him. He can't even sell his platform
> > > > to moderate dems, let alone die-hard conservatives. If he managed to
> > > > magically get to the oval office, he'd be a complete waste of time. He'd
> > > > never get anything done because no congressperson (democrat or
> > > > republican) who wanted to get re-elected could have anything to do with
> > > > him. The same goes for Gravel and Paul too, as far as I'm concerned.
> > > > They all have great ideas for the Perfect America but they give no
> > > > indication that they will be able to put that agenda aside and work with
> > > > the contentious, confused, inertial country we've got right now. We've
> > > > just suffered through 8 years of an ideological, bull-headed president
> > > > who knows what's best for everyone, despite abysmal approval ratings. I
> > > > don't want a repeat, even if I share the ideology this time around.
> > > >
> > > > So when I'm looking at candidates, I'm not looking for the one that is
> > > > the best reflection of me, I'm looking for the one that will best
> > > > champion my overall values to everyone else. I'd like the candidate who
> > > > is most likely to be able to convince the nation as a whole that a
> > > > couple of steps to the left ("and then a jump to the ri-i-i-i-ight!") in
> > > > our policies will do us all some good. Even though I don't agree with
> > > > them issue for issue (and even on some issues that are really important
> > > > to me) I actually think the Democratic front-runners are probably the
> > > > best we've got using that criterion (and maybe Biden too, if he could
> > > > just gain some traction).
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 pyoonies.
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
> > >
> > > Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
> > > rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
> > > he's warm for the rest of his life.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>